Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1993(0)MPLJ104
ORDERD.M. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. A common order in being passed in this petition and Misc. Petition No. 481 of 1992 Ajay Singh s/o Shri Arjun Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., which is on the same subject matter.2. This petition arises in the course of a Commission of Enquiry known as Churhat Lottery Commission. The petitioner challenges notification dated 9-1-1992 (Annexure-M), appointing Hon'ble Shri Justice Kamlakar Choubey, retired Judge of Allahabad High Court as the sole member of the commission in substitution of Hon'ble Shri Justice G. G. Sohani, retired Chief Justice of Patna High Court, who resigned from the membership of the commission. The two notifications of appointment of Justice G. G. Sohani and thereafter Hon'ble Shri Justice Kamlakar Choubey, have resulted in the ouster of Hon'ble Shri Justice S. T. Ramalingam, the then sitting Judge of Madras High Court (now retired) from membership of the Commission.3. In a public interest litigation initiated by Shri Kailash...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1963MP61; 1963CriLJ187
Naik, J. 1. A notice was issued to the non-applicants, Shri R. K. Karanjfa, Shri Sitaram B. Kolpe, and Sardar Balwant Singh, to show cause why they should not be convicted for contempt of Court under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. The notice was issued at the instance of the original petitioner, Deo Ki Nandan Bhargava, who died during the pendency of these proceedings. The petition is now being prosecuted by Smt. padmavati Bhargava, his widow, by leave of this Court.2. Non-applicant No. 1 is the editor, publisher and printer of the English Weekly 'Blitz' published from Bombay, non-applicant No. 2 is a special correspondent of the daily newspaper 'Press Journal' also published from Bombay; and non-applicant No. 3 is a special correspondent of the daily newspaper 'Hitavada' published from Nagpur.3. The complaint against the non-applicants is that In the issue of 'Blitz' dated 25-3-1961, a news item appeared under the caption: 'Who set communal fires abl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1996MP233
S.C. Pandey, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitu-tion of India whereby the petitioners pray for quashing the proceedings of Summary Court-martial and sentences awarded against them in these proceedings (Annexure P-11). They also claim that consequently they should he reinstated in service with all the benefits that would accrue them, the relief of Habeas Corpus claimed by the petitioners must have become infructuous because they must have undergone the sentences awarded to them. No argument was addressed by counsel for the petitioners on this point.2. The facts of the case may now be shortly stated. Havaldar R. P. Shukla, Sep. Patiram Balmiki and Sep. Mohanlal were re-enrolled in Defence Security Corps, by virtue of service in the Army for a certain period. It is not in dispute that as per para 170 of Regulations for Army (Revised edition 1987) they fell within the category 'Exemplary' so far as their character assessment was concerned during their tenure...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1992(0)MPLJ693
ORDERD.M. Dharamadhikari, J.1. The petitioner is a prominent leader of the Congress party in India. He was twice Chief Minister of the State of Madhya Pradesh. For some period, he was Governor of the State of Punjab. He is presently a cabinet minister in the Central Cabinet.2. The petitioner by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the notification published in the Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra dated 29-3-1990, whereby the scope of enquiry pending before Hon'ble Shri Justice S. T. Ramalingam, Judge of the Madras High Court has been enlarged by adding three more terms of reference for enquiry by him.3. A few important events will have to be kept in mind while deciding the present controversy. Shri Kailash Joshi, who was the leader of the opposition in Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly on 18-10-1987 filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, being Misc. Petition No. 3909 of 1987, seeking appropriate directions from the Court in the mat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. This is a petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of :- (a) writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the Lokayukt under the M.P. Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “the Adhiniyam”) isonly a recommendatory body and not a prosecuting agency. (b) writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the entire proceedings held in file No.45/99 against the petitioner in the Lokayukt Sangathan as illegal and void ab initio. (c) writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing the order, passed by Lokayukt directing the SPE for registering a case and proceeding further, as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Adhiniyam. (d) writ of certiorari for quashing the FIR leading to registration of case as Crime No.37/07 at SPE Lokayukt, Bhopal in respect of the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. Since in both the cases petitioners have sought quashing of the first information report dated 6.1.2010 leading to the registration of Crime No.2/2010 and its investigation by Special Police Establishment Lokayukt, Bhopal, this order shall govern the disposal of both the cases.2. Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Bhopal registered the aforesaid first information report on 6.1.2010 against the petitioners under sections 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. According to F.I.R, complainant Rashmi Pathak submitted a written report to Lokayukt, Bhopal on 12.5.2009. After verification, Special Police registered the F.I.R. containing accusation that Dev Vrat Mishra, the then DSP Lokayukt, Jabalpur purchased house No.945 situated at Gulab Singh ward, Jabalpur from one N.Vijayan. In the sale deed, area of the house was shown as 1736 sq.ft. and the stamp duty of Rs.74,025/- was paid. On verificati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(1)MPHT99
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. The petitioner is an organization of farmers, adivasis, labourers, fish workers and other people from the Narmada Valley affected by the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Project on Narmada River and has filed this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation alleging various irregularities and corruption in implementation of measures for resettlement and rehabilitation of the project affected persons of the Sardar Sarovar Project in the State of Madhya Pradesh and has prayed for an investigation into the allegations by an independent agency such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).2. The facts briefly are that the Sardar Sarovar Project is an Interstate Project involving the States of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan and to resolve the disputes between these States, the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') was set up in the year 1969 under the Interstate Water Disputes Act, 1956. In year 1979, the Tribunal ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1999MP41; 1999(1)MPLJ522
ORDERD.P.S. Chauhan, J.1. By means of this petition, petitioner Kailash Joshi has approached this Court seeking the relief for quashing the Order dated 8-5-1997, Annexure-P/1 to the petition and for a direction to the Commission of Inquiry into the affairs of Churhat Children Welfare Society (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as the Corn-mission) for summoning Shri Arum Singh for his cross-examination.2. The order dated 8-5-1997 is the order passed by the Chairman of the Commission rejecting the application of the petitioner for cross-examination, operative portion of which is as extracted below :'In the result, I find that Shri Kailash Joshi has not made out a case for summoning Shri Arjun Singh to come to the witness-box to give evidence and submit himself for cross-examination.'3. It is necessary to give brief facts before considering the arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Rakesh Jain as well as learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 State Shri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1970MP102
Shiv Dayal, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and also under Section 12 (5) of the M. P. Public Security Act, 1959, (hereinafter called the Act).2. 'Swadesh' is a daily newspaper printed at and published from Indore. Shree Rewa Prakashan Ltd. (petitioner No. 3) is the owner, printer and publisher of the paper. Ramnarayan (petitioner No. 1) is the Chairman of the Board of Directors and Hiralal (Petitioner No. 2) is a member of the Board of Directors.3. Communal disturbances broke out in Indore in early June 1969.4. On July 9, 1969, in exercise of their power under Clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, the State Government passed an order prohibiting the bringing into sale, distribution and circulation within the State of the said newspaper 'Swadesh' for a period of one month from the date of the order. The order is in these words:--'Whereas the daily newspaper 'Swadesh' Registered No. M. P. 182 published and printed by Bhalchandra Prahlad De...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1970CriLJ922; 1970MPLJ171
1. This is an appeal by the State Government, Madhya Pradesh, against the order of acquittal dated 14-3-1966 of the Court of the Magistrate First Class, Katghora, The respondents S. P. Mathur and K. K. Sharma, Agent and Manager, respectively, of the Banki Colliery, were prosecuted for contravention of Regulations 89 (i) (c), 87 (3) (c), 87. (9) (b), 113 and 168 read with Regulation 190 of the Coal Mines Regulations of 1957, and it was alleged against them that the said contraventions constituted offences punishable under Section 72(c), A. and C. of the Mines Act, 1952.2. The prosecution case was that on 17-11-64 two loaded tubs were hauled up without attaching a drag or other proper contrivance behind the last tub. When these tubs were hauled up the haulage plane to some distance, the second tub got uncoupled and ran down the plane and struck the buffer provided on the haulage track. As a result of the impact, the said buffer along with its ground stone in which it was fixed and its pr...
Tag this Judgment!